Daniel P Evatt1, Laura M Juliano2, Roland R Griffiths1. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. 2. Department of Psychology, American University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present investigation was to develop and test a brief therapist-guided manualized treatment for problematic caffeine use, including cognitive-behavioral strategies and 5 weeks of progressively decreased consumption. METHOD:Individuals seeking treatment for problematic caffeine use (mean daily caffeine consumption of 666 mg at baseline) were randomized using a waitlist-control design to receive immediate treatment (N = 33) or delayed treatment (∼6 weeks later; N = 34). A 1-hr treatment session designed to help individuals quit or reduce caffeine consumption was provided by a trained counselor along with a take-home booklet. After the treatment session, participants completed daily diaries of caffeine consumption for 5 weeks. They returned for follow-up assessments at 6, 12, and 26 weeks and had a telephone interview at 52-weeks posttreatment. RESULTS: Treatment resulted in a significant reduction in self-reported caffeine use and salivary caffeine levels. No significant posttreatment increases in caffeine use were observed for up to 1 year follow-up. Comparisons to the waitlist-control condition revealed that reductions in caffeine consumption were due to treatment and not the passing of time, with a treatment effect size of R² = .35 for the model. CONCLUSION: A brief 1-session manualized intervention with follow-up was efficacious at reducing caffeine consumption. Future researchers should replicate and extend these findings, as well as consider factors affecting dissemination of treatment for problematic caffeine use to those in need. (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present investigation was to develop and test a brief therapist-guided manualized treatment for problematic caffeine use, including cognitive-behavioral strategies and 5 weeks of progressively decreased consumption. METHOD: Individuals seeking treatment for problematic caffeine use (mean daily caffeine consumption of 666 mg at baseline) were randomized using a waitlist-control design to receive immediate treatment (N = 33) or delayed treatment (∼6 weeks later; N = 34). A 1-hr treatment session designed to help individuals quit or reduce caffeine consumption was provided by a trained counselor along with a take-home booklet. After the treatment session, participants completed daily diaries of caffeine consumption for 5 weeks. They returned for follow-up assessments at 6, 12, and 26 weeks and had a telephone interview at 52-weeks posttreatment. RESULTS: Treatment resulted in a significant reduction in self-reported caffeine use and salivary caffeine levels. No significant posttreatment increases in caffeine use were observed for up to 1 year follow-up. Comparisons to the waitlist-control condition revealed that reductions in caffeine consumption were due to treatment and not the passing of time, with a treatment effect size of R² = .35 for the model. CONCLUSION: A brief 1-session manualized intervention with follow-up was efficacious at reducing caffeine consumption. Future researchers should replicate and extend these findings, as well as consider factors affecting dissemination of treatment for problematic caffeine use to those in need. (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: R R Griffiths; S M Evans; S J Heishman; K L Preston; C A Sannerud; B Wolf; P P Woodson Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 1990-12 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Krista M Lisdahl; Susan Tapert; Kenneth J Sher; Raul Gonzalez; Sara Jo Nixon; Sarah W Feldstein Ewing; Kevin P Conway; Alex Wallace; Ryan Sullivan; Kelah Hatcher; Christine Kaiver; Wes Thompson; Chase Reuter; Hauke Bartsch; Natasha E Wade; Joanna Jacobus; M D Albaugh; N Allgaier; A P Anokhin; K Bagot; F C Baker; M T Banich; D M Barch; A Baskin-Sommers; F J Breslin; S A Brown; V Calhoun; B J Casey; B Chaarani; L Chang; D B Clark; C Cloak; R T Constable; L B Cottler; R K Dagher; M Dapretto; A Dick; E K Do; N U F Dosenbach; G J Dowling; D A Fair; P Florsheim; J J Foxe; E G Freedman; N P Friedman; H P Garavan; D G Gee; M D Glantz; P Glaser; M R Gonzalez; K M Gray; S Grant; F Haist; S Hawes; S G Heeringa; R Hermosillo; M M Herting; J M Hettema; J K Hewitt; C Heyser; E A Hoffman; K D Howlett; R S Huber; M A Huestis; L W Hyde; W G Iacono; A Isaiah; M Y Ivanova; R S James; T L Jernigan; N R Karcher; J M Kuperman; A R Laird; C L Larson; K H LeBlanc; M F Lopez; M Luciana; B Luna; H H Maes; A T Marshall; M J Mason; E McGlade; A S Morris; C Mulford; B J Nagel; G Neigh; C E Palmer; M P Paulus; D Pecheva; D Prouty; A Potter; L I Puttler; N Rajapakse; J M Ross; M Sanchez; C Schirda; J Schulenberg; C Sheth; P D Shilling; E R Sowell; N Speer; L Squeglia; C Sripada; J Steinberg; M T Sutherland; R Tomko; K Uban; S Vrieze; S R B Weiss; D Wing; D A Yurgelun-Todd; R A Zucker; Mary M Heitzeg Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Jennifer L Temple; Christophe Bernard; Steven E Lipshultz; Jason D Czachor; Joslyn A Westphal; Miriam A Mestre Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 4.157